complaint·March 3, 2026

(Continuation from LIC9099) The camera was implemented in the room as R1 had a history of making allegations of other residents entering into R1’s room and stealing R1’s items. During that time when the camera was implemented in the room, R1 made their first allegation of an unknown staff entering into their room and sexually assaulting R1. The surveillance footage was provided to local law enforcement and reviewed by R1’s responsible person. The footage was reviewed and the information provided by R1 could not be corroborated. A medical assessment was conducted for R1 following the incident where R1 was diagnosed with a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). Interview with R1’s responsible person reported that they believed R1 to be experiencing delusions from the diagnosed UTI. R1’s responsible person further reported that the camera was removed as the camera was experiencing technical difficulties. The camera was no longer in R1’s room during the second incident of the sexual assault allegations. R1’s responsible person believed that the camera spiked R1’s paranoia causing R1’s to make frequent allegations of residents enter into R1’s room and/or stealing R1’s items. R1’s responsible person reports receiving a call from ED early February of 2026, informing them of an additional sexual assault allegation by R1. R1’s responsible person does not believe the allegation to be true as R1 was unable to make consistent statements, often changing the date and time of the incident. Following the incident, R1 tested positive for another UTI. Interviews with R1’s responsible person believed the allegation was a result of possible delusions. Interviews with staff report R1 had a fixation on R2 as R1 alleged that R2 was the person who was entering R1’s room and stealing R1’s items. LPA was unable to interview R1 as LPA learned of R1’s passing during the initial visit. Interview with R2 declined any claims of sexual abuse. R2 reports that R1 professed their love to R2. R2 reported declining R1's advances. R2 further reports that after R2 declined R1 advances, R1 began making false claims against R2 alleging that R2 was entering into R1's room and stealing R1's items. LPA attempted to speak with Resident #3 (R3) who shares a common wall with R1. Interview attempt with R3 was unsuccessful as R3 was unavailable. Due to insufficient evidence the allegation of staff did not prevent a resident from inappropriately touching another resident in care is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means although the allegation may have happened and/or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the allegation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to Executive Director Cindy Garcia.